The site has moved to a new server, and there are now some issues to fix. Please report anything needing fixing with a comment to the homepage.



The Chess Variant Pages




[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Motorotor. Variant where two platforms slowly orbit a central board. (11x11, Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Gavin King wrote on 2004-04-05 UTC
Yes, he can. The King controls his entire platform, and only his platform. This means he can 'jump' pieces if needed. He can go anywhereon his platform that a friendly piece is not currently occupying.

Anonymous wrote on 2004-04-05 UTC
Can a King in one corner of his platform move to the
opposite corner of that platform in one move?

Gavin King wrote on 2003-09-19 UTC
Sorry about the example game. I think i was playing with moving before the rotation. The example is really screwed up, and it should not be used as anything informative. I should get around to fixing it soon.

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2003-09-18 UTC
I just made two presets for Motorotor. One goes by the rule that the board rotates at the end of each move, and the other simulates the rule that the board rotates at the beginning of each turn. In trying out your sample game with both presets, I learned that it is illegal no matter whether the rule is to rotate before the move or after the move. When you rotate before the move, f10 does not exist when it is Black's first turn to move. When you rotate after the move, there is no piece on c4 for White to move on his second turn. It could be that in your sample game, you sometimes rotated the board before the move and sometimes rotated it after. But your sample game never indicated when the board was rotated during each player's turn. So it would provide incomplete information for anyone wishing to follow it. If this is not what happened, then some moves have been recorded inaccurately.

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2003-09-16 UTC
From the perspective of playing by email, it makes some sense to move first then move the board. This allows a player to move on the board as he sees it, since the Game Courier has no facility for updating the board before the players moves. But moving the board first is virtually logically equivalent to moving it last. Moving the board first can be simulated by changing the starting position to the first rotation, then rotating the board at the end of every move.

Gavin King wrote on 2003-09-15 UTC
Sorry. I kind of dropped off the face of the Internet for a couple of
months.
Fergus, if I remember correctly, you move the board first and play second,
although the alternatives may make it a more interesting or playable
game.
If anyone else has questions I didn't answer, just resend them and I'll
do my best.
Gavin King

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2003-09-13 UTC
I'm planning a new feature for the Game Courier that would make it much easier to play this game. Basically, it would add an automated move to the end of every move. This could be done as a rotation of all the spaces around the main part of the board. But I'm not clear on the rules of this game. When it is your turn, do you move first or rotate the board first? Or can each player move and rotate in either order?

Carlos Martín-Fuert wrote on 2003-06-30 UTCGood ★★★★
As a matter of fact, I think I remember some game by Fergus Duniho called
'British Chess' or something like that, using the piece you named
'Luxury Bishop' (or 'Pawnshop'), which he called 'Anglican Bishop'.

The reason for the name was, according to Mr. Duniho, that normal
(Catholic) Bishops had made a vow that they should remain colourbound,
whereas Anglican Bishops had not.

Anyway, I also liked the pun about the BmW being 'Bayerische
MotorWagen'. It may seem irrelevant to some people, but I always liked
those stupid things about names of the pieces having a story behind.

Gavin King wrote on 2003-05-10 UTC
Good Name! The fact that the bishop can hop on the platform is hampered somewhat bu the fact that to get ON the platform, it has to capture an enemy piece and then ride it out for 3 or more moves. One is out because of the '2 in a row' rule.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2003-05-04 UTC
As the Luxury Bishop is a Bishop with the ordinary non-capturing Pawn move, and has the capturing one anyway as part of the Bishop move, an alternative name for it could be 'Pawnshop'. Luxury is evidently in the eye of the beholder! This is the first game I have seen where a single Bishop has an extra move to remove colourbinding (although in Shogi it may acquire such a move during the game), but it is hardly necessary as the moving squares remove colourbinding anyway!

Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-04-20 UTC
No need to take my self-criticism seriously -- I didn't mean it so!

Gavin King wrote on 2003-04-19 UTC
Don't be so hard on yourself. It's tough to be efficient when you're not paid, and you guys do a remarkable job.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-04-18 UTC
Note: the rule update just posted was submitted before the deadline, so counts. It just took a while for us inefficient editors to get around to posting it.

Gavin King wrote on 2003-04-12 UTC
Thanks, that is a very good thing to know.

John Lawson wrote on 2003-04-12 UTC
Gavin,

Just 'sent in'.  The time taken to post a game is imponderable, and
depends on what format the entry is submitted in, and the time the editors
have available.

Gavin King wrote on 2003-04-12 UTC
Sorry, I meant the 15th.

Gavin King wrote on 2003-04-12 UTC
Thanks. Already on fixing it. One question though, do the entries have to be *sent in* or *posted* before the 14th?

Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2003-04-09 UTC
Actually, the contest is open until April 15, so any changes, if needed, until then are accepted.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2003-04-09 UTCGood ★★★★
I like this game. The rotating platform is certainly innovative and interesting. Some of the pitfalls that are mentioned could be worked out with a little playtesting (outside the contest, to be sure). The game concept, though, is not without merit.

Gavin King wrote on 2003-04-09 UTC
Hey, man, no hard feelings. The thing scares me too. Thanks for pointing out the draw thing. The nature of the game makes 3fold repetition hard, but 50move draw still applies. Well, I never said I had extensively playtested it. :-)

Nicholas Kuschinski wrote on 2003-04-08 UTC
I'm the author of the last comment, forgot to provide my name (and don't want to leave such harsh commentary without giving you anyone to swear and curse at), and also just noticed that after you lose the first omnipawn, the draw strategy can be made even simpler by just moving a piece back and forth on the moving board, and not having to go through any complicated schemes to ensure that other pieces can come back onto the board without being taken (undefended) and without being stopped (which can be done, its easy enough to check).

Anonymous wrote on 2003-04-07 UTCPoor ★
AGHHH!!! Scary! Even though all of the rules seem extremely similar to regular chess rules, none of the strategies seem to apply. Since the king keeps moving around there is no actual direction that you are going in, and the number of moves you make seems to make a big difference as to whether or not a particular position is checkmate. A king can only be checked in the orthodox way by a piece that is actually on the platform with him (since he gets to move along with the platform for free each time. However, any of these ordinary checks seems pointless, since the king can move anywhere on his platform, and can easily take the piece on the next move, unless it is defended, but such a defense would have to be done in a weird way by a piece that is off of the platform, and would only last one move. The luxury bishop is unnecesary. For a bishop to change colors it can always hitch a ride on a motorized platform for any odd number of moves. There also seem to be a guaranteed draw strategy: Just leave all pieces but one omnipawn on the platform (not always the same one) and just keep pushing the omnipawn onto and off of the platform (as often as possible) If you run out of omnipawns, any other piece should be able to do it, even if it's a little more complicated. Any opposing pieces which venture onto the platform are taken with the king, and the king moves back to his protected spot in the back. The eventual result is that either play continues forever, or there is a draw by lack of force. You get a 'poor' from me for two reasons: The draw strategy, and the fact that your variant is just too scary for me to really think about very much.

22 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.